Goods and Services Tax

Cases where IGST refunds have not been granted due to claiming higher rate of drawback OR where higher rate and lower rate were identical
26/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS: BENGALURU CITY COMMISSIONERATE P.B. NO. 5400: C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU-5600 001
C.NO.VIII/09/ 16/2018 City Cus.Tech
Dated: 26.10.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 26/2018
Subject: Cases where IGST refunds have not been granted due to claiming higher rate

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

E. Basheer Ahamed Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1466 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
Appeal No. ST/310/2012 – Final Order No. 42733/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a qualified engineer and had provided construction services to M/s. BSNL during the period 2005 – 06 to 2008 – 09 under the category of commercial or industrial construction service, which is a taxable service. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the Central Excise officers that the appellant is not paying service tax under the said category, investigations were initiated against the appellant and show cause notice was issued proposing to recover service tax of Rs. 4,31,559/- along wi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

contract service whereas the show cause notice has proposed to demand under commercial or industrial construction service. He also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. Vs. CCE – 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT, Chennai.
3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order.
4. After hearing both sides, it is brought to light that the period involved in the present case is June 2007 to March 2009. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under commercial or industrial construction service. The contract entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and constructi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ract Service.
7.9 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to reproduce excerpts from the Union Finance Minister's budget speech in 2007:-
“State Governments levy a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a works contract should attract service tax. Hence, I propose to an optional composition scheme under which service tax will be levied at only 2 per cent of the total value of the words contract”.
7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the ambit of levy of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. As pointed out by the ld. counsels

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

fication of service shall be based on the specific entries and the more specific description of service has to be preferred. He invited our attention to CBEC‟s Circular 128/10/2010 dated 24.8.2010 which is reproduced as under:-
“The matter has been examined. As regards the classification, with effect from 1-6-2007 when the new service 'Works Contract service' was made effective, classification of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after that date.”
7.12 Thus, for example, while construction of a new residential complex as a service simpliciter would find a place under section 65(105)(30b) of the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Service under Section 65 (105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. In such situation, we note that it cannot be a case of simple mentioning of wrong provisions of law as submitted by the Revenue. Apparently, the tax liability of composite works contract is to be considered under works contract services only as per legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s L&T Limited. Even in the appeal, the Revenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section 65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity.”
b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – 2018-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM, in respect of identical issue for the period from 2005 to 2012, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:-
“7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

nue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships have very categorically laid down the law that the works contract cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of demand under various other services. On this ground itself, the entire demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so.”
c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:-
“9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus
'24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines “taxable service” as “any service provided”. A

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

itted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007.
11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing 'works contract service' had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than 'commercial or industrial construction service'. It is already established in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is liable to

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

e period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. So ordered
5.3 For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is Rs. 26,88,611/-. We note that the appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around Rs. 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of Rs. 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of Rs. 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit of the officers. However, the interest liability if any that arise on this amount if not paid already will have to be discharged by the appellants. So

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under 'Works Contract Service' as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid.
d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex' Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain.”
5. Following the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of service tax under commercial or industrial construction service (residential complex) cannot sustain after the period 1.6.2007. The levy of service tax prior to

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. SRC Projects P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1465 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
Appeal Nos. ST/659/2010 And ST/575/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42698-42699/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) And Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The issue involved in both the appeals being the same they are heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are paying service tax under the head commercial construction service. The period involved in the first appeal is from April 2007 to September 2007 and the period involved in the second appeal is from October 2007 to March 2009. They are eligible for abatement of 67% of the taxable value as per Notif

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

009. She submitted that the entire demand is unsustainable as the activity undertaken by the appellant falls under the category of works contract service involving execution of composite contracts. Therefore, the entire demand of service tax under the category of commercial or industrial construction service is unsustainable. She also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. Vs. CCE – 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT, Chennai.
4. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus supported the findings in the impugned order.
5. After hearing both sides, it is brought to light that the period involved in the present case is from April 2007 to March 2009. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under construction of residential complex services. The contracts entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

erection and commissioning service, commercial or industrial construction service, construction of complex service and in addition turnkey projects including EPC projects within the definition of Works Contract Service.
7.9 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to reproduce excerpts from the Union Finance Minister's budget speech in 2007:-
“State Governments levy a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a works contract should attract service tax. Hence, I propose to an optional composition scheme under which service tax will be levied at only 2 per cent of the total value of the words contract”.
7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that com

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

He took support of the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant' – 'general things do not derogate special things'. The counsel for appellants have submitted that as per Section 65A of the Act ibid, classification of service shall be based on the specific entries and the more specific description of service has to be preferred. He invited our attention to CBEC‟s Circular 128/10/2010 dated 24.8.2010 which is reproduced as under:-
“The matter has been examined. As regards the classification, with effect from 1-6-2007 when the new service 'Works Contract service' was made effective, classification of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ct Service, were available in the Finance Act, 1994. The SCN did mention this in the first para itself. However, the proposal for tax demand was specifically made under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service under Section 65 (105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. In such situation, we note that it cannot be a case of simple mentioning of wrong provisions of law as submitted by the Revenue. Apparently, the tax liability of composite works contract is to be considered under works contract services only as per legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s L&T Limited. Even in the appeal, the Revenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section 65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity.”
b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Servic

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

unal. If that be so, even when the Revenue authorities are accepting the facts that the contracts executed by the appellant are nothing but works contracts, for the period in question, entire case of the Revenue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships have very categorically laid down the law that the works contract cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of demand under various other services. On this ground itself, the entire demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so.”
c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:-
“9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus
'24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(1

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of properly in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract.'
10. In view of this specific decision and the admitted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007.
11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing 'works contract service' had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

demand of service tax liability only under these two categories and not under Works Contract service. The demand confirmed in the impugned order under these categories namely under construction service for the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. So ordered
5.3 For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is Rs. 26,88,611/-. We note that the appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around Rs. 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of Rs. 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of Rs. 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be consi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

racted only if the activities are in the nature of services' simpliciter.
c. For activities of construction of new building or civil structure or new residential complex etc. involving indivisible composite contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under 'Works Contract Service' as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid.
d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex' Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain.”
6. Following the above decision, we ar

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to provide taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018 time to furnish final return in FORM GSTR-10 till 31st December, 2018
(23/2018) No. FD 47 CSL 2017 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Karnataka SGST
GST – States
Karnataka SGST
Karnataka SGST
FINANCESECRETARIAT
NOTIFICATION (23/2018)
No. FD 47 CSL 2017, Bengaluru, dated 26/10/2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 148 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Karnataka A

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Clarifications of issues under GST related to casual taxable person and recovery of excess Input Tax Credit distributed by an Input Service distributor.
CIRCULAR No. 71/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Gujarat SGST
GST – States
CIRCULAR
Commissioner of State Tax,
Gujarat State, Ahmedabad
Dated 26th October, 2018
CIRCULAR No. 71/2018
No.GSL/GST/B.11
Subject: Clarifications of issues under GST related to casual taxable person and recovery of excess Input Tax Credit distributed by an Input Service distributor.
Representations have been received seeking clarification on certain issues under the GST laws. The same have been examined and the clarifications on the same are as below:
S.No.
Issue
Clarification
1.
Whether the amount requi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

on.
2.
As per section 27 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), period of operation by causal taxable person is ninety days with provision for extension of same by the proper officer for a further period not exceeding ninety days. Various representations have been received for further extension of the said period beyond the period of 180 days, as mandated in law.
1. It is clarified that in case of long running exhibitions (for a period more than 180 days), the taxable person cannot be treated as a CT P and thus such person would be required to obtain registration as a normal taxable person.
2. While applying for normal registration the should upload a copy of the allotment letter grant

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

edit to one or more recipients of credit, the excess credit so distributed shall be recovered from such recipients along with interest and penalty if any.
2. The recipient unit(s) who have received excess credit from ISD may deposit the said excess amount voluntarily alongwith interest if any by using FORM GST DRC-03.
3. If the said recipient unit(s) does not come forward voluntarily, necessary proceedings may be initiated against the said unit(s) under the provisions of section 73 or 74 of the GGST Act as the case may be. FORM GST DRC-07 can be used by the tax authorities in such cases.
4. It is further clarified that the ISD would also be liable to a general penalty under the provision contained in section (122)(1)(ix) of the GGST Act.

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Processing of Applications for Cancellation of Registration submitted in FORM GST REG-16.
CIRCULAR No. 69/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Gujarat SGST
GST – States
CIRCULAR
Commissioner of State Tax,
Gujarat State, Ahmedabad
Dated 26th October, 2018
CIRCULAR No.69/2018
No. GSL/GST/B. 9
Subject: Processing of Applications for Cancellation of Registration submitted in FORM GST REG-16 Reg.
The Board is in receipt of representations seeking clarifications on various issues in relation to processing of the applications for cancellation of registration filed by taxpayers in FORM GST REG-16. In order to clarify these issues and to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of law across the field formations, the Commissioner of State Tax, in exercise of its powers conferred by section 168 (1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “GGST Act”), hereby clarifies the issues as detailed hereunder:
2. Section 29 of the GGST Act, read

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

an event occurs. For instance, a business may be transferred/disposed over a period of time in a piece meal fashion. In such cases, the 30-day deadline may be liberally interpreted and the taxpayers' application for cancellation of registration may not be rejected because of the possible violation of the deadline.
4. While initiating the application for cancellation of registration in FORM GST REG-16, the Common portal captures the following information which has to be mandatorily filled in by the applicant:
a) Address for future correspondence with mobile number and email address;
b) Reason for cancellation;
c) Date from which cancellation is sought;
d) Details of the value and the input tax/tax payable on the stock of inputs, inputs contained in semi-finished goods, inputs contained in finished goods, stock of capital goods/plant and machinery;
e) In case of transfer, merger of business, etc., particulars of registration of the entity in which the existing unit has been merged,

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

the application for cancellation.
In all cases other than those listed at (a) and (b) above, the application for cancellation of registration should be immediately accepted by the proper officer and the order for cancellation should be issued in FORM GST REG-19 with the effective date of cancellation being the same as the date from which the applicant has sought cancellation in FORM GST REG-16. In any case the effective date cannot be a date earlier to the date of application for the same.
6. In situations referred to in (a) or (b) in Para 5 above, the proper officer shall inform the applicant in writing about the nature of the discrepancy and give a time period of seven working days to the taxpayer, from the date of receipt of the said letter, to reply. If no reply is received within the specified period of seven working days, the proper officer may reject the application on the system, after giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard, recording reasons for rejection in the di

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

of cancellation, whichever is later. The purpose of the final return is to ensure that the taxpayer discharges any liability that he/she may have incurred under sub-section (5) of the section 29 of the GGST Act It may be noted that the last date for furnishing of FORM GSTR-10 by those taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before 30.09.2018 has been extended till 31.12.2018 vide Government Notification, Finance Department No. (GHN-108)GST-2018/S.148(100-TH dated the 26th October, 201 8, Notification No. 58/2018-StateTax.
8. Further, sub-section (5) of section 29 of the GGST Act, read with rule 20 of the GGST Rules states that the taxpayer seeking cancellation of registration shall have to pay, by way of debiting either the electronic credit or cash ledger, the input tax contained in the stock of inputs, semi-finished goods, finished goods and capital goods or the output tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher. For the purpose of this calculation, the stock of in

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

hat the output tax liability of the taxpayer, as determined under subsection (5) of section 29 of the GGST Act, was greater than the amount of input tax credit available, then the difference shall be paid by him/her in cash. It is reiterated that, as stated in sub-section (3) of section 29 of the GGST Act, the cancellation of registration does not, in any way, affect the liability of the taxpayer to pay any dues under the GST law, irrespective of whether such dues have been determined before or after the date of cancellation.
9. In case the final return in FORM GSTR-10 is not filed within the stipulated date, then notice in FORM GSTR-3A has to be issued to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer still fails to file the final return within 15 days of the receipt of notice in FORM GSTR-3A, then an assessment order in FORM GST ASMT-13 under section 62 of the GGST Act read with rule 100 of the GGST Rules shall have to be issued to determine the liability of the taxpayer under sub-section (5) of sec

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

e GGST Act has been amended by the GGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 to provide for “Suspension” of registration. The intent of the said amendment is to ensure that a taxpayer is freed from the routine compliances, including filing returns, under GST Act during the pendency of the proceedings related to cancellation. Although the provisions of GGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 have not yet been brought into force, it will be prudent for the field formations not to issue notices for non-filing of return for taxpayers who have already filed an application for cancellation of registration under section 29 of the GGST Act. However, the requirement of filing a final return, as under section 45 of the GGST Act, remains unchanged.
12. It may be noted that the information in table in FORM GST REG-19 shall be taken from the liability ledger and the difference between the amounts in Table 10 and Table 1 of FORM GST REG-16.
13. Difficulty, if any, in implementation of the above instructions may please be bro

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to provide taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018 time to furnish final return in FORM GSTR-10 till 31st December, 2018.
45/2018-State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEPARTMENT OF TAX & EXCISE
ITANAGAR

Notification No. 45/2018-State Tax
The 26th October, 2018
No. GST/23/2017/Vol-I.-In exercise of the powers conferred

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

BHAGWATI PRODUCTS LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
Customs
2018 (11) TMI 857 – SC Order – 2019 (365) E.L.T. A39 (SC)
SUPREME COURT – SC
Dated:- 26-10-2018
Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 35978/2018
Customs
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind P. Dattar, Sr. Adv.Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Manish Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Shrey Ashat,

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Belapur Versus Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt Ltd
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 842 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
APPLICATION NOS: ST/ROM/85493, 85498 to 85504/2018 IN APPEAL NOS: ST/87234 to 87241/2016 – M/86105-86112/2018
Service Tax
Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Shri MK Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR) for appellant applicant
Shri A R Krishnan, Chartered Accountant for respondent
ORDER
Per: C J Mathew
In these applications, made under section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944, Revenue contends that mistakes apparent on the record in final order no. A/89737-89744/17/STB dated 29th September 2017 disposing off appeal no. ST/87234/2016-MUM of theirs against the order of the first appellate authority in favour of M/s Flemingo Duty Free Shops P Ltd requires rectification. The dispute that was carried to the Tribunal pertains to eligibility for claim of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

f Customs Act, 1962, also sought rectification of that mistaken conclusion. Furthermore, according to him, the frontiers of taxable territory having been decided upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v. Union of India [2008 (227) ELT 24 (SC)], the Tribunal had erred in excluding 'duty free shops' in 'international airports' from 'taxable territory.' The applications also seeks that written submissions, filed on behalf of Revenue, but ignored by the Tribunal, be taken into consideration.
3. Before proceeding to record the submissions of Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the respondent, we cannot but observe that section 35C(2) of central Excise Act, 1944 is not intended to be an instrument for altering a final decision handed down by the Tribunal. 'Mistake apparent in the record' is one that should be apparent and not any disagreement with consequences of the trajectory of reasoning adopted or the outcome of the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

, and that, in the face of such obdurate refusal to accept the logical reasoning adopted in the impugned order, the Tribunal was compelled to drive the point home in no uncertain terms even by indulgence in theoretical exercise. It was also pointed out that the submissions of Revenue during the hearing appeared to fall back on the settled law pertaining to refund of CENVAT credit extended to exporters of goods and services in rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with its own definition of 'exports' that was not germane to the dispute before the Tribunal.
5. We have perused the written submissions that are part of the record pertaining to disposal of the appeal and annexed to the present application. Undoubtedly, it is elaborate on the exports that are entitled to rebate, is replete with various decisions pertaining to disposition of warehoused goods in the domestic market and hypothesizes that the respondent may be unjustly enriched by grant of rebate. Doubtlessly impelled by t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

edless to say, it is a fallacy to equate narration or assertion with acceptable disposal of submissions.
6. All that remains for disposal is the allegation of taint of mistake in the foray of the final order of the Tribunal into 'taxable territory.' It would not be out of place to note here that an order need not necessarily conform, either in pattern or in content, to the wisdom, expectation and comprehension of the applicant-Commissioner. In deciding to approve, reject or modify an order .impugned before it, the Tribunal may, by the qualification of its constituents as well as its status in the judicial hierarchy, find it necessary to articulate the law as settled, interpret law that is yet to be settled, impart encyclopaedical information and offer pedagogical explanation with the larger purpose of persuading that law and logic go hand in hand to limit the authority vested in tax collectors. A discussion on the leviability of domestic tax outside the 'taxable territory&

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

on; the equating of the two may well suit the applicant-Commissioner but inappropriate citing would not advance that cause.
8. As to whether that reasoning, if it did impact upon the confirmation of the orders of the two lower authorities, was correct in law or otherwise is for the Government to dispute before, and to be decided by, the appropriate appellate authority specified in the statute. To that end, Learned Chartered Accountant brought to our notice, almost as denouement, that Government of India, in Department of Revenue vide order no. 634/2018-CUS (WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 31st August 2018 through the Revision Authority in exercise of powers under section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 while disposing of application of Shri Aarish Altaf Tinwala, has found that
'11. The Central Government however observes that the duty free shops though being physically located in Indian Territory, are specifically treated as being located outside the Customs Territory of India. … Goods sold by D

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

hic territory of India, but for the purposes of levy of Customs Duties or any other taxes, the area of Duty Free shops shall be deemed to be the area beyond the customs frontiers of India….'
9. The decision of the Government of India supra is neither binding on us nor should be so construed as to deny the present application which seeks a limited relief within the scope of section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. That opinion was also not available to persuade the Tribunal in composing the final order, now sought to be rectified, that was rendered. Even if it was, Learned Authorised Representative contends that an order pertaining to a passenger seeking exclusion from duties of customs in excess of 'free allowance' permissible to him has no bearing on the issue. Nevertheless, on the scope for application of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Hotel Ashoka, cited by Learned Authorised Representative, and the holistic perspective of the physical extent of t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Larsen & Toubro Limited (EAIC) Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 829 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
APPEAL NO: E/86348/2018 – A/87789/2018
Central Excise
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
Shri Jitendra Khare, AGM with Shri Kishore Ahuja, AGM for appellant
Shri S.J. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (AR) respondent
ORDER
Imposition of penalty on ground of suppression of alleged availment of inadmissible credit even after subsequent reversal upon audit noting before issue of show cause is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. Brief fact of the appellant's case is that it is a large tax payer which is subjected to CERA and EA-2000 audits every year. During EA audit conducted in the month of June 2016 it was brought to the notice of appellant that certain inadmissible Cenvat Credits were availed by the appellant for the period between Oct-11 to Mar-15 amounting to Rs. 8,71,885/- and the same wa

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

h facilities available in the form prescribed for e-filing of returns. The appellant also contended that every year Excise Department had conducted audit of its records and verified the detail of Cenvat Credit availed by it but they had not raised any objection on previous occasions for which no mens rea can be inferred from the conduct of the appellant since entire allegedly erroneous credit is only 0.2% of the total availed of credit of Rs. 45,37,57,775/- covering 72,266 numbers of invoices and error might have occured in handling such huge volume of data. The Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Jitendra Khare & Shri Kishore Ahjuja further submitted that in the previous occasions, on similar situations, favourable Order-in-Originals had been passed in favour of appellant and the same may be treated as judicial precedent in setting aside the order.
4. In response to such submissions of the appellant, the Learned AR for the Department Shri S.J. Sahu supported the order of the Commi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

arties which firm part of the appeal case record. Admittedly, appellant's availment of Cenvat credit which was held by the audit party is inadmissible is not being questioned in this appeal about its legality. In his Order-in-Appeal the commissioner has distinguished the appellant's case in respect of earlier decisions concerning the appellant on similar issue passed by the adjudicating authority and he hold that previous audit cannot be taken as a plea of non-suppression. To him audit is nothing but vouching a document in a selective and comprehensive way but it is not a complete checking of each and every document for which it cannot be said that there was no suppression or non disclosure of fact since it was appellant's responsibility to bring facts of availment of credit which they failed to do. However, in order to find out the purpose of audit, reference is made by me to the Manual published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in respect of EA audit and CERA audit.

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ined by CERA audit party to point out the deficiencies, leakage of revenue and non recoveries of dues by the Central Excise Department. Therefore it cannot be said that only because audit party had found some credit availed as inadmissible, suppression of fact is made out.
6. As found from the show cause notice as well as from the OIO and OIA, the credit was held to be inadmissible on the ground that after sale services credit should not go to the manufacture but nowhere it has been referred that sale was done by the third party other than the manufacturer itself but there is no point in discussing on the merit of admissibility of the credit since the same is accepted by the appellant and not challenged though there is a difference between acceptance of the direction of the executive authority and imposition of tax without compliance to Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
7. Appellant has placed heavy reliance on the case law reported in 2015-TIOL-223-SC-CX in the matter of Com

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

lleged inadmissibility runs into lakhs, considering the largeness of tax payment by the appellant in crores, it comprised of only 0.2% of its total Cenvat Credit allegedly wrongfully availed. It is also found from the show cause and OIO that one to one co-relation of the credit availed is not a basic requirement of Cenvat Credit rules. Furthermore appellant had not only reversed the credit which was held by the audit party as inadmissible but had also intimated the fact of such reversal by e-mail to the competent authority. Audit being one of the ways by which departmental authorities can bring the fact of inadmissibility of credit to the knowledge of the assessee on verification of its document for which no specific mode is prescribed in the statute for suo moto submission of Cenvat Credit documents or related information to Excise Department and self assessment mechanism being introduced, it cannot be said that any suppression of fact has been established against the appellant. Hence

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Notifies the persons whose registration under the said Act has been cancelled by the proper officer on or before the 30th September, 2018,furnish the final return in FORM GSTR-10 of the said rules till the 31st December, 2018.
ERTS(T) 65/2017/Pt. II/29-58/2018-State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 Meghalaya SGST
GST – States
Meghalaya SGST
Meghalaya SGST
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
EXCISE, REGISTRATION, TAXATION & STAMPS
DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
No. 58/2018-State Tax
Dated Shillong, the 26

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Prescribing the date of furnishing of final return in form GSTR-10 for the class of persons whose registration has been cancelled on or before 30.09.2018.
G.O. Ms. No. 141 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Tamil Nadu SGST
GST – States
Tamil Nadu SGST
Tamil Nadu SGST
NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT
COMMERCIAL TAXES AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TAMIL NADU GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017.
[G.O. Ms. No. 141, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B-1), 26th October 2018,
Aippasi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Prescribing the date of furnishing of final return in form GSTR-10 for the class of persons whose registration has been cancelled on or before 30.09.2018.
F.12(56)FD/Tax/2017-Pt-III-126 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Rajasthan SGST
GST – States
Rajasthan SGST
Rajasthan SGST
GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(TAX DIVISION)
NOTIFICATION
Jaipur, dated: October 26, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No. 9 of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to extends the time limit for furnishing the declaration in FORM GST ITC-04 for the period from July, 2017 to September, 2018 till 31st December, 2018.
(01-V/2018) No. KGST.CR.01/2017-18 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Karnataka SGST
GST – States
Karnataka SGST
Karnataka SGST
Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka)
Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru,
NOTIFICATION (01-VI 2018)
No. KGST.CR.01/17-18. Dated: 26.10.2018
In pursuance of section 168 of the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Extension of due date for furnishing return in GSTR- 3B for the month of September, 2018 till 25.10.2018.
25/2018-C.T./GST-55/2018-State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 West Bengal SGST
GST – States
West Bengal SGST
West Bengal SGST
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
DIRECTORATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
14, BELIAGHATA ROAD, KOLKATA-700015
NOTIFICATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
Notification No. 25/2018-C.T./GST Dated: 26.10.2018
Notification No. 55/2018-State Tax
In exercise of the powers co

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Ease of doing Business (EODB)- CT Department – GST Act 2017- GST Help Desk cum facilitation centres at Division/Circle level w.e.f.01.07.2017 -assist taxpayers for e-filing of returns and explain the procedures.
CCW/CS (2)/58/2017 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Andhra Pradesh SGST
GST – States
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
CIRCULAR
CCT's Ref. No.CCW/CS (2)/58/2017, Dt.26.10.2018
Sub: Ease of doing Business (EODB)- CT Department – GST Act 2017- GST Help Desk cum facilitation centres at Division/Circle level w.e.f.01.07.2017 -assist taxpayers for e-filing of returns and explain the procedures -Orders issued- Reg.
****
After implementation of GST w.e.f 01.07.2017 in the state, department has initiated action for

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

epartment already established the Facilitation centres cum helpdesks at division and circle level offices based on the location of offices and assist the taxpayers and general public for the procedures to be followed under the GST regime, filing of returns and help in solving the technical glitches facing.
Hence, Joint Commissioners (ST), are requested to encourage the more taxpayers to utilise the services of these facilitation centres cum help desks for e- filing of returns and assisting users in preparing and filing returns under the AP GST act 2018 with immediate effect.
The facilitation centres should maintain the record with details of services provide to the taxpayers with details like GSTN No, enterprise name, email ID and contact

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

FDC Limited Versus CCGST, Mumbai West
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 1561 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
APPEAL NO: ST/87537/2018 – A/87764/2018
Service Tax
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Appellants: Shri Mehul Jivani, Advocate
Respondent: Shri O.M Shivadikar, AC (AR)
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed from the order-in-appeal no. NA/GST A-III/MUM/392/17-18 dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), CGST and CX, Mumbai.
2. Refund claim of service tax of Rs. 3,51,117/- was filed by the appellant on the ground that they have not provided any service to M/s Generic Partners, Australia but only provided documents to them, in respect of the products manufactured and supply to them, in order to enable them to apply and obtained marketing authorization from distribution and for providing the documents, the appellant has received the amount as per the Manufacture and Supply Agreement dated 05.02.2018 between M/s Gen

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

he Revenue and perused the record. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on various grounds viz. that the issue of the violation of principle of natural justice has not been gone into by the Commissioner while deciding the appeal; that since no service was provided by the appellant, the amount paid by the appellant is not service tax and therefore, the time limit as prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable for refund of the amount which is not service tax at all; that unjust enrichment is not applicable in the facts of the present case since the agreement between M/s Generic Partners, Australia and the appellant clearly stipulates that the consideration is exclusive of VAT and exclusive of other taxes if applicable; that even if the activity is treated as a provision of service, the same will fall under the definition of export of service and therefore, no service tax is payable. Learned Authorised Representative, on the other hand reiterated the findings recorded in th

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ty of defending the case. A consistent view taken by this Tribunal is that there has to be issuance of show cause notice, since it is mandatory and if the same has not been issued, then it is contrary to law and such proceedings have to be quashed. The lacunae of non issue of show cause notice is not curable and such proceedings are not sustainable. Even if a party has waived the show cause notice, it will not absolve the department's statutory liability to issue show cause notice under the relevant provision. Mere presence of the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority during the course of hearing does not authorise the department to encroach upon the right of the appellant to have a fair the opportunity of placing his defence before the adjudicating authority. The presence of the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, without issuance of show cause notice, cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellant had a fair opportunity to defend the case. Otherwise also principle of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Filing a FINAL Return till 31st December 2018 in FORM GSTR-10 by taxpayers whose Registration Certificate has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018.
58/2018–State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 Maharashtra SGST
GST – States
Maharashtra SGST
Maharashtra SGST
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated the 26th October 2018
NOTIFICATION
Notification No. 58/2018-State Tax
MAHARASHTRA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017.
No.

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to provide taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018 time to furnish final return in FORM GSTR-10 till 31st December, 2018
58/2018-State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 Gujarat SGST
GST – States
Gujarat SGST
Gujarat SGST
NOTIFICATION
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar
Dated the 26th October, 2018
Notification No. 58/2018-State Tax
No. (GHN-108)/GST-2018/S.148(10)TH:- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Gu

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. KHUSHIYA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1454 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 141 (Guj)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 26-10-2018
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14566 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14567 of 2018
GST
MR AKIL KURESHI AND MR UMESH TRIVEDI, JJ.
For The Petitioner : MR SIRAJ R GORI (2298) AND MR VARIS V ISANI (3858)
For The Respondent : MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, AGP
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. These petitions are filed for challenging provisional orders of attachment passed by the respondent authorities attaching the petitioner's factory premises, stock and bank accounts. The facts behind such action of the respondents are that the petitioner-a Private Limited Company is engaged in manufacture and trading in caster oil and related products. The premises of the petitioner and other entities in the same business were raided. During the period between 27.06.2018

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

me reasonable conditions, attachment should be suspended.
3. On the other hand, learned AGP explained the modes operandi allegedly employed by the petitioner for defrauding the Government revenue. He submitted that there is reliable material on record to establish such allegation. Pending assessment, the competent authority passed the order of provisional attachment to protect the interest of the Revenue.
4. In facts of the case, we have to balance the interest of both sides. At the prima facie stage, the department contends strongly that the petitioner has indulged into revenue defalcation. Possible tax and penalty liabilities are substantial. At the same time, it is not disputed that the petitioner is also involved in legitimate business activities. By freezing the petitioner's bank accounts and attaching the properties, the petitioner is temporarily rendered penalized. The petitioner cannot operate the business, cannot move the stock and cannot make payments. On reasonable ter

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ollection.
6. Under the circumstances, we would permit the petitioner to carry on the legitimate business by suspending provisional attachments subject to fulfillment of following conditions:
(i) The petitioner creates an undertaking to maintain a stock of the goods of a minimum of Rs. 5 crores. Such undertaking shall be filed before the department as well as before this Court by 15.11.2018;
(ii) The petitioner give unconditional bank guarantee to the department to the tune of Rs. 5 crores. For this limited purpose of enabling the petitioner to create stock and give bank guarantee, it would be open for the petitioner to receive payments from its dealers. The director of the petitioner will file undertaking before this Court latest by 30.10.2018 that such payments will not be utilized for any purpose other than creating the stock as directed above and for raising bank guarantee.
7. Upon fulfilling such conditions, the attachment orders would automatically stand suspended along wit

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to provide taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018 time to furnish final return in FORM GSTR-10 till 31st December, 2018
S.O. 266 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Bihar SGST
GST – States
Bihar SGST
Bihar SGST
Commercial Tax Department
Notification
The 26th October 2018
S.O. 266, Dated 26th October 2018- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this notificat

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Circular to clarify the procedure in respect of return of time expired drugs or medicines – Reg.
72/46/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 CGST – Circulars / Ordes
GST
Circular No. 72/46/2018-GST
F. No. CBEC/20/16/04/2017-GST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
GST Policy Wing
New Delhi, Dated the 26th October, 2018
To,
The Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners/Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners of Central Tax (All)
The Principal Directors General/Directors General (All)
Madam/Sir,
Subject: Circular to clarify the procedure in respect of return of time expired drugs or medicines – Reg.
Various representations have been received seeking clarification on the procedure to be followed in respect of return of time expired drugs or medicines under the GST laws. The issues raised in the said representations have been examined and to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the law across the fie

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

be treated as fresh supply:
a) In case the person returning the time expired goods is a registered person (other than a composition taxpayer), he may, at his option, return the said goods by treating it is as a fresh supply and thereby issuing an invoice for the same (hereinafter referred to as the, “return supply”). The value of the said goods as shown in the invoice on the basis of which the goods were supplied earlier may be taken as the value of such return supply. The wholesaler or manufacturer, as the case may be, who is the recipient of such return supply, shall be eligible to avail Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as “ITC”) of the tax levied on the said return supply subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in Section 16 of the CGST Act.
b) In case the person returning the time expired goods is a composition taxpayer, he may return the said goods by issuing a bill of supply and pay tax at the rate applicable to a composition taxpayer. In this scenario t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

the basis of fresh invoice issued by wholesaler is ₹ 15/-. So, when the time expired goods are destroyed by the manufacturer he would be required to reverse ITC of ₹ 15/- and not of ₹ 10/-.
(B) Return of time expired goods by issuing Credit Note:
a) As per sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the CGST Act the supplier can issue a credit note where the goods are returned back by the recipient. Thus, the manufacturer or the wholesaler who has supplied the goods to the wholesaler or retailer, as the case may be, has the option to issue a credit note in relation to the time expired goods returned by the wholesaler or retailer, as the case may be. In such a scenario, the retailer or wholesaler may return the time expired goods by issuing a delivery challan. It may be noted that there is no time limit for the issuance of a credit note in the law except with regard to the adjustment of the tax liability in case of the credit notes issued prior to the month of September foll

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ed the credit note) as tax liability cannot be adjusted in this case.
d) Further, where the time expired goods, which have been returned by the retailer/wholesaler, are destroyed by the manufacturer, he/she is required to reverse the ITC attributable to the manufacture of such goods, in terms of the provisions of clause (h) of sub-section (5) of section 17 of the CGST Act. This has been illustrated in table below:
Date of Supply of goods from manufacturer/ wholesaler to wholesaler/ retailer
Date of return of time expired goods from retailer / wholesaler to wholesaler / manufacturer
Treatment in terms of tax liability & credit note
Case 1
1st July, 2017
20th September, 2018
Credit note will be issued by the supplier (manufacturer / wholesaler) and the same to be uploaded by him on the common portal. Subsequently, tax liability can be adjusted by such supplier provided the recipient (wholesaler / retailer) has either not availed the ITC or if availed has reversed the ITC.
Ca

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Clarifications of issues under GST related to casual taxable person and recovery of excess Input Tax Credit distributed by an Input Service distributor – Reg.
71/45/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 CGST – Circulars / Ordes
GST
Circular No. 71/45/2018-GST
F. No. 349/94/2017-GST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
GST Policy Wing
New Delhi, Dated the 26th October, 2018
To,
The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners/Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners of Central Tax (All)/
The Principal Directors General/ Directors General (All)
Madam/Sir,
Subject: Clarifications of issues under GST related to casual taxable person and recovery of excess Input Ta

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ty” only and not the gross tax liability.
2. It is accordingly clarified that the amount of advance tax which a casual taxable person is required to deposit while obtaining registration should be calculated after considering the due eligible ITC which might be available to such taxable person.
2.
As per section 27 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), period of operation by causal taxable person is ninety days with provision for extension of same by the proper officer for a further period not exceeding ninety days. Various representations have been received for further extension of the said period beyond the period of 180 days, as mandated in law.
1. It is clarified that in case of lo

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Input Service Distributor (ISD) in contravention of the provisions contained in section 20 of the CGST Act.
1. According to Section 21 of the CGST Act where the ISD distributes the credit in contravention of the provisions contained in section 20 of the CGST Act resulting in excess distribution of credit to one or more recipients of credit, the excess credit so distributed shall be recovered from such recipients along with interest and penalty if any.
2. The recipient unit(s) who have received excess credit from ISD may deposit the said excess amount voluntarily along with interest if any by using FORM GST DRC-03.
3. If the said recipient unit(s) does not come forward voluntarily, necessary proceedings may be initiated against the said u

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Clarification on certain issues related to refund – Reg.
70/44/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 CGST – Circulars / Ordes
GST
Superseded Vide Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18-11-2019
Circular No. 70/44/2018 -GST
F. No. CBEC/20/16/04/2017-GST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
GST Policy Wing
New Delhi, Dated the 26th October, 2018
To,
The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners / Principal Commissioners / Commissioners of Central Tax (All)/
The Principal Directors General / Directors General (All)
The Principal CCA, CBIC
Madam/Sir,
Subject: Clarification on certain issues related to refund – Reg.
The Board is in receipt of representations seeking clarification on certain issues relating to refund. In order to clarify these issues and to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of law across the field formations, the Board, in exercise of its powers conferred by sectio

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

rvices Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Rules”) is required to be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger of the applicant by using FORM GST RFD-01B and the taxpayer is expected to file a fresh application for refund.
2.2 The issue has been re-examined and it has been observed that presently the common portal does not allow a taxpayer to file a fresh application for refund once a deficiency memo has been issued against an earlier refund application for the same period. Therefore, it is clarified that till the time such facility is developed, taxpayers would be required to submit the rectified refund application under the earlier Application Reference Number (ARN) only. Thus, it is reiterated that when a deficiency memo in FORM GST RFD-03 is issued to taxpayers, re-credit in the electronic credit ledger (using FORM GST RFD-01B) is not required to be carried out and the rectified refund application would be accepted by the jurisdictional tax authorities with the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

, had accorded approval to the proposal of suitably amending the said sub-rule along with sub-rule (4B) of rule 89 of the CGST Rules prospectively in order to enable such exporters to avail the said facility notification No. 54/2018 – Central Tax dated the 9th October, 2018 has been issued to carry out the changes recommended by the GST Council. Alongside the amendment carried out in the said sub-rule through the notification No. 39/2018- Central Tax dated 4th September, 2018 has been rescinded vide notification No. 53/2018 – Central Tax dated the 9th October, 2018.
3.2 For removal of doubts, it is clarified that the net effect of these changes would be that any exporter who himself/herself imported any inputs/capital goods in terms of notification Nos. 78/2017-Customs and 79/2017-Customs both dated 13th October, 2017 shall be eligible to claim refund of the IGST paid on exports till the date of the issuance of the notification No. 54/2018 – Central Tax dated the 9th October, 2018 ref

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Processing of Applications for Cancellation of Registration submitted in FORM GST REG-16 – Reg.
69/43/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 CGST – Circulars / Ordes
GST
Circular No. 69/43/2018-GST
F. No. CBEC/20/16/04/2017-GST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
GST Policy Wing
New Delhi, Dated the 26th October, 2018
To,
The Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners/Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners of Central Tax (All)
The Principal Directors General/Directors General (All)
Madam/Sir,
Subject: Processing of Applications for Cancellation of Registration submitted in FORM GST REG-16 – Reg.
The Board is in receipt of representations seeking clarifications on various issues in relation to processing of the applications for cancellation of registration filed by taxpayers in FORM GST REG-16. In order to clarify these issues and to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of law across

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

r cancellation of registration shall submit the application in FORM GST REG-16 on the common portal within a period of 30 days of the „occurrence of the event warranting the cancellation‟. It might be difficult in some cases to exactly identify or pinpoint the day on which such an event occurs. For instance, a business may be transferred/disposed over a period of time in a piece meal fashion. In such cases, the 30-day deadline may be liberally interpreted and the taxpayers‟ application for cancellation of registration may not be rejected because of the possible violation of the deadline.
4. While initiating the application for cancellation of registration in FORM GST REG-16, the Common portal captures the following information which has to be mandatorily filled in by the applicant:
a) Address for future correspondence with mobile number and email address;
b) Reason for cancellation;
c) Date from which cancellation is sought;
d) Details of the value and the in

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

s incomplete, i.e. where all the relevant particulars, as detailed in para 4 above, have not been entered;
b) In case of transfer, merger or amalgamation of business, the new entity in which the applicant proposes to amalgamate or merge has not got registered with the tax authority before submission of the application for cancellation.
In all cases other than those listed at (a) and (b) above, the application for cancellation of registration should be immediately accepted by the proper officer and the order for cancellation should be issued in FORM GST REG-19 with the effective date of cancellation being the same as the date from which the applicant has sought cancellation in FORM GST REG-16. In any case the effective date cannot be a date earlier to the date of application for the same.
6. In situations referred to in (a) or (b) in para 5 above, the proper officer shall inform the applicant in writing about the nature of the discrepancy and give a time period of seven working days

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ed person (other than an Input Service Distributor or a non-resident taxable person or a person paying tax under the provisions of section 10 or section 51 or section 52) whose registration has been cancelled, to file a final return in FORM GSTR-10, within three months of the effective date of cancellation or the date of order of cancellation, whichever is later. The purpose of the final return is to ensure that the taxpayer discharges any liability that he/she may have incurred under sub-section (5) of the section 29 of the CGST Act. It may be noted that the last date for furnishing of FORM GSTR-10 by those taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before 30.09.2018 has been extended till 31.12.2018 vide notification No. 58/2018 – Central Tax dated the 26th October, 2018.
8. Further, sub-section (5) of section 29 of the CGST Act, read with rule 20 of the CGST Rules states that the taxpayer seeking cancellation of registration shall have to pay, by way of debiting either t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

said date except for discharging liabilities under GST Act upto the date of filing of final return in FORM GSTR-10. Therefore, the requirement to reverse the balance in the electronic credit ledger is automatically met. In case it is later determined that the output tax liability of the taxpayer, as determined under sub-section (5) of section 29 of the CGST Act, was greater than the amount of input tax credit available, then the difference shall be paid by him/her in cash. It is reiterated that, as stated in sub-section (3) of section 29 of the CGST Act, the cancellation of registration does not, in any way, affect the liability of the taxpayer to pay any dues under the GST law, irrespective of whether such dues have been determined before or after the date of cancellation.
9. In case the final return in FORM GSTR-10 is not filed within the stipulated date, then notice in FORM GSTR-3A has to be issued to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer still fails to file the final return within 15 day

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

any taxable supplies during the intervening period (i.e. from the date of registration to the date of application for cancellation of registration) and has furnished an undertaking to this effect.
11.1[It is pertinent to mention here that section 29 of the CGST Act has been amended by the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 to provide for “Suspension” of registration. The intent of the said amendment is to ensure that a taxpayer is freed from the routine compliances, including filing returns, under GST Act during the pendency of the proceedings related to cancellation. Accordingly, the field formations may not issue notices for non- filing of return for taxpayers who have already filed an application for cancellation of registration under section 29 of the CGST Act. Further, the requirement of filing a final return, as under section 45 of the CGST Act, remains unchanged.]
12. It may be noted that the information in table in FORM GST REG-19 shall be taken from the liability ledger and the dif

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =